Title: The Corporation Chris Knortz Director: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, 2003 How is the central argument or narrative of the film sustained?
This is a film that looks at the inner workings of corporations and how their actions affect the lives of millions of people every day in a negative way. It shows how they have grown to be the dominate force in modern life, effecting every aspect of our lives. This is demonstrated thorough numerous interview with prominent business men and economists, who all explain how decisions made by individuals for a corporation should only be for the benefit that corporation, and not some higher social responsibility of the individual. Corporations have influence in a vast amount of modern society and government. This influence is used solely to increase profit, often causing problems for innocent third parties, titled externalities by Milton Friedman. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
In the film the prominent economist Milton Friedman is intervened, he is one of the biggest proponents of the open economy with little or no government influence. He made a statement on the idea of corporations making socially responsible decisions, "Asking a corporation to be socially responsible makes no more sense than asking a building to be." This quote gives good context for the general attitude of the corporate world that is shown throughout the film. The film also goes through the history of corporations that has led to them becoming powerful and destructive machines of profit. Originally they were groups of people gathered for a business endeavor. Each member of the corporation was legally responsible for the results of the business decision. This system encouraged more conservative and well thought out decisions. This began to change as corporations gained the rights of a person. They legally became a person protected under the 14th Amendment. The people making decisions were no longer legally responsible for the results, encouraging riskier behavior in the pursuit of profits. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling?
One long section of the film that showed the lengths a corporation would go to cover their own bad decisions was the reporters who were fired for running a story on hormones in the milk supply. The two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Willson were fired form their jobs with Fox new after refusing to change their story on the use of rBGH in cows to increase milk production. Fox was put under pressure by Monsantos, the company that made the hormone as well as many other household chemicals, to not run the story. Monsantos was going to refuse to advertise on any Fox networks if the story ran, this was one of Fox’s biggest advertising accounts. In the end both Steve and Jane were fired. They took Fox to court and were awarded compensation. However this was taken back when the court ruled that the Fox was not legally obligated to tell the truth in their new programs. Monsantos was able to use its political and economic power to ensure the story never got out in its original form.
In the film there is a theme that many of these proponents of an open economy advocate for, that is the privatization of everything. This is putting a value of every resource and opportunity in the world to make a truly free and open economy. Already many of the world common spaces are being divided up, the oceans are owned by countries, common land has been sold, schools are being privatized, and many more. This was shown in an extreme fashion in Bolivia where a corporation, Bechtel, was hired to provide water for the people. This monopoly allowed the Bechtel to raise the price of water 35% immediately. The monopoly on water went so far as to control all water in the city, even rain water. Citizens were not allowed to gather water falling form their roves. This then sparked riots in the city of Cochabamba, after several weeks the private water system was removed. Under this system many of the people were forced to pay more for water than they did for food. The corporation in this case only saw the profit that could be gained by increasing the price in the situation, not the social impact of people going without water. In the end this thinking hurt the company. They were removed from the city and no longer controlled the water supply. Also their global reputation was tarnished by the media image that was portrayed. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
There is a lot of discussion on the evil behavior of corporation, from their direct business decisions to their influence on consumers and politics. In general corporations are shown as evil and blamed for many of the world problems. This may be the truth in the present political and economic situation. However with the proper regulation and encouragement they could be great forces of change and progression. Currently society allows them to pursue profits at all cost. If a new system was put in place that encouraged corporations to make responsible decisions, a system were an irresponsible corporation could not survive, they could be welcome members in society. The film show little hope for a better future for corporate decisions making. What audience does the film best address?
The film is able to speak to consumers very well. These are people who unknowingly support many of these corporations. Consumers are shown how their lives are influenced on almost every level, and many times this influence cannot be seen. What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value?
There were very few examples of corporations making the socially responsible decisions in the film. Ray Anderson, the CEO of Interface, was one example of a corporation making responsible decisions. In this case he had a unique position in that he was able to make changes while increasing profits to the company. This is not always possible, examples of a company that made decisions that were not immediately beneficial would have helped in the process of seeing true responsibility. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film?
There was no direct call to action in the film, however just by watching the film the viewer is increasing his or her level of education on the issue. This is the most important action the public can take against such problem. People who know more about problems facing the world will be able to make better informed choices. The point of intervention would be for people to learn more about the facts of corporate decision making and truly understand the effects of those decisions. This would lead many to changing their lives, what they buy, how they consume, and who they buy from. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
After seeing the short section on the Bolivian water monopoly crisis I began to search for more information on this topic. I found an article by Jim Schultz about the crisis. It is a general overview of the original problem and the resulting events. Jim Schultz has written about different social issues in Bolivia for several years for Democracyctr.org. The article goes through the initial social conditions that lead to the selling of the water supply system to Bechtel. Then the change in policy that made water an unattainable resource for many of the nation’s poor. It was interesting to hear how Bechtel negotiated a contract that was known to put a heavy burden on the poor. Bechtel was promised a 16% return on their investment forcing the poor to cover most of that profit. Even after they left the country they continued to defend their actions in a letter responding to articles written by Jim Schultz.
Next I was interested in the use of rBGH for the increased production of milk from cows. I found a book by Lisa Mills, Science and Social Context: The Regulation of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone in North America. In the Overview the author goes into a brief description of Health Canada’s ban on the use of the drug and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval. She then goes on to point out that there was not conflict in what the evidence showed, that there were health risks to cow and people, but the interpretation of the evidences differed greatly depending on context. In the U.S. it was judged that the health risks to humans were not definite enough to ban the use of the drug. This is a policy that forces sufficient evidence to be bought up that shows the substantial health risks, instead of forcing a company to prove that there are no substantial risks.
Director: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, 2003
How is the central argument or narrative of the film sustained?
This is a film that looks at the inner workings of corporations and how their actions affect the lives of millions of people every day in a negative way. It shows how they have grown to be the dominate force in modern life, effecting every aspect of our lives. This is demonstrated thorough numerous interview with prominent business men and economists, who all explain how decisions made by individuals for a corporation should only be for the benefit that corporation, and not some higher social responsibility of the individual. Corporations have influence in a vast amount of modern society and government. This influence is used solely to increase profit, often causing problems for innocent third parties, titled externalities by Milton Friedman.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
In the film the prominent economist Milton Friedman is intervened, he is one of the biggest proponents of the open economy with little or no government influence. He made a statement on the idea of corporations making socially responsible decisions, "Asking a corporation to be socially responsible makes no more sense than asking a building to be." This quote gives good context for the general attitude of the corporate world that is shown throughout the film.
The film also goes through the history of corporations that has led to them becoming powerful and destructive machines of profit. Originally they were groups of people gathered for a business endeavor. Each member of the corporation was legally responsible for the results of the business decision. This system encouraged more conservative and well thought out decisions. This began to change as corporations gained the rights of a person. They legally became a person protected under the 14th Amendment. The people making decisions were no longer legally responsible for the results, encouraging riskier behavior in the pursuit of profits.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling?
One long section of the film that showed the lengths a corporation would go to cover their own bad decisions was the reporters who were fired for running a story on hormones in the milk supply. The two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Willson were fired form their jobs with Fox new after refusing to change their story on the use of rBGH in cows to increase milk production. Fox was put under pressure by Monsantos, the company that made the hormone as well as many other household chemicals, to not run the story. Monsantos was going to refuse to advertise on any Fox networks if the story ran, this was one of Fox’s biggest advertising accounts. In the end both Steve and Jane were fired. They took Fox to court and were awarded compensation. However this was taken back when the court ruled that the Fox was not legally obligated to tell the truth in their new programs. Monsantos was able to use its political and economic power to ensure the story never got out in its original form.
In the film there is a theme that many of these proponents of an open economy advocate for, that is the privatization of everything. This is putting a value of every resource and opportunity in the world to make a truly free and open economy. Already many of the world common spaces are being divided up, the oceans are owned by countries, common land has been sold, schools are being privatized, and many more. This was shown in an extreme fashion in Bolivia where a corporation, Bechtel, was hired to provide water for the people. This monopoly allowed the Bechtel to raise the price of water 35% immediately. The monopoly on water went so far as to control all water in the city, even rain water. Citizens were not allowed to gather water falling form their roves. This then sparked riots in the city of Cochabamba, after several weeks the private water system was removed. Under this system many of the people were forced to pay more for water than they did for food. The corporation in this case only saw the profit that could be gained by increasing the price in the situation, not the social impact of people going without water. In the end this thinking hurt the company. They were removed from the city and no longer controlled the water supply. Also their global reputation was tarnished by the media image that was portrayed.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
There is a lot of discussion on the evil behavior of corporation, from their direct business decisions to their influence on consumers and politics. In general corporations are shown as evil and blamed for many of the world problems. This may be the truth in the present political and economic situation. However with the proper regulation and encouragement they could be great forces of change and progression. Currently society allows them to pursue profits at all cost. If a new system was put in place that encouraged corporations to make responsible decisions, a system were an irresponsible corporation could not survive, they could be welcome members in society. The film show little hope for a better future for corporate decisions making.
What audience does the film best address?
The film is able to speak to consumers very well. These are people who unknowingly support many of these corporations. Consumers are shown how their lives are influenced on almost every level, and many times this influence cannot be seen.
What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value?
There were very few examples of corporations making the socially responsible decisions in the film. Ray Anderson, the CEO of Interface, was one example of a corporation making responsible decisions. In this case he had a unique position in that he was able to make changes while increasing profits to the company. This is not always possible, examples of a company that made decisions that were not immediately beneficial would have helped in the process of seeing true responsibility.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film?
There was no direct call to action in the film, however just by watching the film the viewer is increasing his or her level of education on the issue. This is the most important action the public can take against such problem. People who know more about problems facing the world will be able to make better informed choices. The point of intervention would be for people to learn more about the facts of corporate decision making and truly understand the effects of those decisions. This would lead many to changing their lives, what they buy, how they consume, and who they buy from.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
After seeing the short section on the Bolivian water monopoly crisis I began to search for more information on this topic. I found an article by Jim Schultz about the crisis. It is a general overview of the original problem and the resulting events. Jim Schultz has written about different social issues in Bolivia for several years for Democracyctr.org. The article goes through the initial social conditions that lead to the selling of the water supply system to Bechtel. Then the change in policy that made water an unattainable resource for many of the nation’s poor. It was interesting to hear how Bechtel negotiated a contract that was known to put a heavy burden on the poor. Bechtel was promised a 16% return on their investment forcing the poor to cover most of that profit. Even after they left the country they continued to defend their actions in a letter responding to articles written by Jim Schultz.
Next I was interested in the use of rBGH for the increased production of milk from cows. I found a book by Lisa Mills, Science and Social Context: The Regulation of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone in North America. In the Overview the author goes into a brief description of Health Canada’s ban on the use of the drug and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval. She then goes on to point out that there was not conflict in what the evidence showed, that there were health risks to cow and people, but the interpretation of the evidences differed greatly depending on context. In the U.S. it was judged that the health risks to humans were not definite enough to ban the use of the drug. This is a policy that forces sufficient evidence to be bought up that shows the substantial health risks, instead of forcing a company to prove that there are no substantial risks.
Schultz, Jim. Bolivia’s Water War Victory”. WorldTraveler.com 2000 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html
Mills, Lisa. Science and Social Context: The Regulation of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone in North America McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal. CAN 2002 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/rpi/docDetail.action?docID=10141458